About your Search

20130211
20130219
STATION
MSNBC 6
MSNBCW 6
CSPAN 5
CSPAN2 5
WHUT (Howard University Television) 4
CNN 2
CNNW 2
KQED (PBS) 2
WETA 2
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 44
Search Results 0 to 43 of about 44 (some duplicates have been removed)
senator from a red state, a decorated and wounded combat veteran nominated to lead the pentagon while we are at war. republicans have never before felt the need to filibuster a cabinet member in the history of the country but apparently now this is the time and this is the guy worth waiting 224 years to spring it on. it has never happened before, but why not now? heck. the white house is not pleased. "today's action runs against both the majority will of the senate and our nation's interest. this waste of time is not without consequence. we have 66,000 men and women deployed in afghanistan, and we need our new secretary of defense to be a part of significant decisions about how we bring that war to a responsible end. next week in brussels, the united states will meet with our allies to talk about the transition in afghanistan at the nato defense ministerial, and our next secretary of defense should be there. for the sake of national security, it's time to stop playing politics with our department of defense and to move beyond the distractions and delay. allow this war hero an up or down
the obama administration, i'm quoting him now, of a, quote, massive cover-up. let's bring in our pentagon correspondent barbara starr. she's working this story for us. how those are pretty stinging and strong words, barbara. >> reporter: absolutely, wolf. you know, the whole benghazi situation has already led to delays in confirming some of president obama's key appointees. chuck hagel at defense, john brennan at the cia, and now senator mccain saying he is not ready to call it a day on all of this. a congress hearing -- >> then you ought to have your facts straight. >> reporter: after congressional hearing. >> who responsible then? >> reporter: republican senator john mccain challenge, the white house on its response to benghazi. now he is going further on nbc's "meet the press." >> so there are many, many questions and we have had a massive cover-up. >> a cover-up of what? i'm just saying you, a cover-up of what? >> i'll be glad to send you a list of questions that have not been answered. >> reporter: the white house says it's given answers. conducted 20 briefings for congress. official
. the pentagon will increase the staff on cyber command from 900 to 5,000 employees for the next few years. it calls for reorganizing the d.o.d.'s command to a semis kateed cyber fighting machine. it will be divided into three areas: national mission forces to protect our nation's electric grid from outside attack. combat mission forces, and cyber protection forces to fortify the pentagon's computer networks. it's a brave new virtual world and some experts say america's already late to the game when it comes to fighting cyber wars. with me from washington, d.c. to talk about what is needed to boost cyber security in the pentagon is allen paul, director of research at the sans institute. he's co-chair of the secretary of homeland securities task force on cyber skills. welcome to the war room, allen. >> thank you michael. >> michael: you know, president obama announced what are saying are long awaited cyber security executive order in the state of the union address. let's listen to the president talk about what he has to say on the other side. >> earlier today i signed a new executive order
. are republicans gearing up to deny an up or down vote for the pentagon kick before the weekend? >>> president obama's road show policy push hits atlanta today and we'll take a deep dive into the options and odds of the president having to fall back on executive actions, because his policies won't go anywhere in congress. >>> and the republican ruckus over karl rove's conservative counter-strategy is reaching a bit of a fever pitch. but is the core of this fight really about the messengers or the message itself? >> good morning from washington and happy valentine's day. it's thursday, february 14th, 2013. this is "the daily rundown." i'm chuck todd. let's get right to my first reads of the morning. it may be valentine's day, but not a lot of love for chuck hagel. next week a nato meeting of defense ministers is scheduled in brussels. but given the way chuck hagel's nomination is going, it's possible the u.s. may not have a new defense secretary there or leon panetta may be forced to go there steed. yesterday, the senate began the odd procedural dance that is required for cloture, the process f
take effect at the pentagon two weeks from now? >> pleus the he made history at the olympics the double amputee known as "the blade runner". oscar pit tore just is arrested after his girlfriend was shot to death at his home. >>> who was behind this brutal attack? we'll show you the video and tell you the full story. it is all "happening now.". jon: good morning to you, on this valentine's day. we begin with new questions about the fire that ended the manhunt for that fugitive ex-cop accused in a vicious killing spree. i'm jon scott. jenna: i'm jenna lee. we're awaiting the identification of those remains believed to be that of christopher dorner. the body was found in the burned out cabin in california's big bear mountains following a firefight with police and a standoff that lasted for several hours. now police say they didn't intentionally set the cabin on fire. all this comes as we're hearing for the first time from the couple who say they were kidnapped by dorner just before that deadly standoff. william la jeunesse is following this story from los angeles. start with the couple of
that came out recently. it did suggest the pentagon is pushing the pentagon that would only keep 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the process so far, but can you support a plan that was scheduled withdraws troops in advance? you know, we're looking at withdraws troops in afghanistan and according to this article from a passing down to 1000 within a short period of time, i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdraw when sec previously, so much depends on the ground, what the government is doing, what variability eyes up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood with the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. certainly my advice is the commander on the ground or commander central command would provide my advice based upon breaking the security forces are and the conditions in theater and what i think we need to do to move forward to make sure we maintain the
effective in dealing inside the pentagon? >> i would worry about a congress being jammed to support a nominee that the "washington post" is said to the left of obama policy agenda and on the fringe of the senate. >> heather: joining me now is brad blakeman and erlina maxwell i'll start with you. it does appear that chuck hagel will be confirmed as secretary of defense. will this delay his performance during his confirmation hearing make him a less effective or respected secretary of defense? >> process isn't over and the delay is a caused by hagel himself. additional information was needed in his testimony. the senators have a right to review that material and use that in their judgment. assuming he is confirmed, certainly his performance before the senate was not of the caliber as anybody would thought as somebody seeking the department of defense. it was not where it should have been. he knows that. certainly the white house knows that. having said that, i think the jury out. they are going to be looking to see when she confirmed as to whether he is up for the job. really the burd
is confirmed and sworn in." close quote. so if anybody's under any misapprehension, i believe the pentagon press secretary has made that clear, we have a secretary of defense. he has not resigned, and he will continue to serve until such time as his successor is sworn in. and i would just say again to my friend, the senator from illinois, the assistant majority leader, we all know what a filibuster is. a filibuster is designed to kill a nomination or to defeat legislation, as the senator from tennessee said. and i would say this is equivalent to what happened back in 2005, and i have a letter here, mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to be made part of the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: and i will refer to it. this is a letter signed by chris dodd, our former colleague who served on the foreign relations committee, and joe biden when he was the ranking member of the foreign relations committee back in 2005. it's entitled "dear democratic colleague, we write to urge you to oppose the cloture on the bolton nomination tonight. w
to continue on the washington post article that came all recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that would keep only 8000 troops in afghanistan. general austin, can you support a plan that was scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? we are looking at the withdrawal of troops in afghanistan. according to this article, from 8000 to about 1000 in a short period and of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends on troops on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are at that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i would really work hard to make sure i fully understood what to the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. my advice as a commander on the ground or a commander of central command -- i would provide my advice to them based upon where i think the security forces are , the conditions in the theater, and what i think we need to do to move full word to make sure we maintai
. as is widely recognized, sequestration over the next 10 years apply to the pentagon budget would only reduce it in inflation adjusted terms to what it was in 2007 a. the most powerful military in the world -- 2007, as the most powerful military in the world engaged in a war in iraq and the challenge in afghanistan. if members of congress pay attention to the facts, they will see a clear path to dramatically reduce pentagon spending without undermining america's position as being the most powerful nation on the planet. and nobody has done a better job of highlighting a path forward, an area of opportunity, than walter pinkus writhing on the pages of the "washington post" over the last couple years as he details the sweep of our nuclear weapons program and the spending trajectory. this morning's latest offering should be required reading for every member of congress and the ones who whine the loutest should be forced to read it -- loudest should be forced to read it twice. he details a vast array of nuclear weapons already deployed, ready to be deployed within 30 minutes, a relic of our conten
the government watching? >>brian: the government will provide life lock for the pentagon, which we offer now is some kind of protection because we don't want all our secret cables to be exposed by idiots like the one we just had -- >> that's different from what the president did the other day. the government has an obligation to protect the pentagon. the government does not have an obligation to protect you or fox news or me or "the new york times." so what's the government going to do? the government is going to share information with major internet providers. and pretty soon it's going to say to the internet providers, all that information we gave you about us, we now want information about you. we want to know about kilmeade's e-mails. we're worried about him. we want to know who he's pha*eulg -- e-mailing so we can keep him safe. baloney. protect the government, but leave the rest of us with privacy. if you're going to interfere with the internet, should it be done by the command of one person -- the president -- or should it be done after great national debate and the congress? >>gretch
the pentagon press corps for an award called the distinguished medal. he also addressed north korea's's nuclear program and the troops withdraw and afghanistan and sequestration. >> as you know, this is i believe my final press conference here at the pentagon briefing room. there are moments when i thought it was the last act of an italian opera. i'm not sure exactly when it would end and the fat lady would sing. but i think that the congress will act and they will confirm chuck hagel this week. so what i wanted to do is to use this opportunity to first of all thank you all, all of you that are part of the press corps here and the press in general. throughout my 50 years in public service, i have always believed very deeply in the role of the press. because i believe deeply in the role of the american people in our democracy, the information is the key to an informed electorate. while we may or may not agree with every story in the grand scheme of things, because of the work of the press i believe the truth always comes out. and in the end, we cannot really serve the american people well unless
,000 dead americans, the trade towers are taken out, the pentagon's been hit. if it hadn't been for the folks on 93 they'd have taken out the white house or the capitol on washington, d.c. worst attack in our history. worse than pearl harbor by far. and it was our job to make certain it didn't happen again. we were concerned for a couple of rps, partly because the expectation was there would be a follow on attack, nearly everybody believed it. but we also received intelligence that al qaeda was trying to get their hands on deadlier weapons. >> rose: do you regret nothing about the aftermath in terms of how we -- >> regarding 9/11? >> rose: everything that we did and that you were and the president were at the center of the response to 9/11. look back and say "we regret nothing"? >> that's my view. >> rose: none? >> correct. >> rose: you know this has been debated, too. >> sure. >> rose: were we prepared for the consequences after saddam was overthrown? >> well, that was the second proposition. you asked me about the aftermath of 9/11, the policies we put in place here. i would s
that is relate to the pentagon and to the u.s. military that will just be held in abians -- >> what do you think the british military and the french think when leon panetta turns up? >> well, they like leon panetta but what they will think is what they have been thinking for the last 2 1/2 years, is that the republican party in the united states has gone off the rails and is obstructing the normal order of business of the world's only super power, and this is the first time, martin, in the history of the defense department going back to the 1940s that there's been a filibuster of a nominee to head that department and i would wager that if it went to its predecessor that the department of war going all the way back in american history, this has never been done. these people are out of control in their obstructionism and the only thing to do is fight them all the way, and there are new tools that the president unveiled in his state of the union to do that with. the president should go to enlisted personnel, retired enlisted personnel all over the united states and say, chuck hagel is the first of
the pentagon and military posts have strong seasoned leadership teams. regardless of having the secretary or not having one is a portent concern. -- a point of concern. you have a good strong team that will be able to manage through this process. they have seen this coming. as you would expect the military to do, they are prepared. host: new hampshire, and the pennant caller -- caller: morning and thank you. i am so tired of the irresponsibility of the republicans. the chuck hagel thing is preposterous. how does it serve the nation to delay the president's choice? it is the first time in history that a filibuster has been used against a cabinet the sequester is the height of irresponsibility. why risk a potential double dip recession just so you can score political points? finally, you criticized the president for being out of washington and yet, -- that was and finally -- hear you are supporting a filibuster and finally, though you partly answer the question or just now, what your district and tails are large installations, i assume, other than fort campbell in your district. my brother
is served until 2009, and works in the pentagon. our first call, on the republican line. caller: my daughter serves in the marine corps. i'm very proud of my daughter. if we take and put our people out of afghanistan, what is going to prevent these people from going back over -- coming back over to our country, and a glowing us up again? we may have gotten rid of osama bin laden. what about everybody else? we have to protect our people, whether it is in afghanistan, africa, or wherever. we cannot allow our people totally out of this country just because president obama says, they are muslims, they are my fellow men, my fellow religion, i want our people out of there. that is not right. i come over to our country and try to kill us. we need to stay over there and fight for our freedom. host: you bring up interesting points. basic idea we have in this country is that we get into wars, but we very rapidly lose the ability to support those wars, political perspective. we saw what happened in vietnam. if desert storm last longer, we would have seen the same thing there. we know what happened with
at the pentagon and intelligence advisory board, chuck hagel is uniquely qualified to meet challenges of defense and effort he put into the record many statements in support of senator hagel. this is what he says relative to a rant. iran poses a significant threat. >> please take your conversations outside the chamber. senate will proceed. >> no one talks about position on iran. poses a significant threat to the united states and interest in the region and globally. iran pursues an illicit nuclear program with the threats to provoke a regional arms race. and is fully committed to the quote preventing iran from obtaining new layer but then to achieve that goal and relative to israel, he's a strong supporter of israel, deputy minister he is a good friend of israel and in the word of dna alone says he believes and is not talking a senator hagel in the natural partnership between israel and the united states as part of the volume of defense relations between israel and the united states, which are so important to both countries. now the only question is what we're voting on. what we are voting on he
the confirmation of former senator chuck hagel to head the pentagon seems more likely. senate republicans successfully held up the process seeking clarification about mr. hagel's views on israel and iran and pressed the administration for more answers about the deadly benghazi terrorist attack. chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel is live in washington with more details on all of this. mike, what is the latest from top republicans from the hab gel nomination. >> reporter: senator john mccain said what we've been reporting which is after this recess the senate will up the nomination and the expectation senator chuck hagel will votes necessary to be confirmed. his colleague, senator lindsey graham explained why. >> because i do believe the president has great deference. here's the question for of the country. can we do better than that? i think so. the president chose a controversial nominee that refuses to sign letters supporting israel during the 2000 infin todd today. refused to iranian guard as terrorist organization. refused to sign a letter asking the e.u. designates hezboll
's quest to take over at the pentagon. >> we don't have the information we need and i am going to fight the idea of jamming somebody through until we get answers. >> reporter: republican lindsey graham repeating a threat to block the vote until he gets an answer from the white house on whether the president called libyan officials the night of the deadly benghazi attack. this after a sometimes bitter debate in the normally bipartisan senate armed services committ committee. texas republican ted cruz demanded to know more about hagel's speeches. >> we do not know, for example, if he received compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme or radical groups. it is at a mineral vanity to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from saudi arabia, came directly from north korea. >> reporter: angering democrats. >> we are not going to accept your suggestion and innuendo that there's some conflict of interest here because there is no evidence of a conflict of interest. >> reporter: and prompting this response from fellow republican john mccain. >> and no one
apart and obviously the optics of being out of town when there's steep cuts to the pentagon and other government programs is not great but it's really an oversimplification of the issue. >> molly, what about the plan put forth earlier this week, the $110 billion plan to avert the sequester. is that going to gain any traction? >> i doubt it. republicans have already basically said that's dead on arrival and as jake said it's not like they were getting anything done here in washington before they went on vacation. there really hasn't been any progress. there are no negotiations, nobody's talking to each other. you have these one-sided plans being put together and then they sort of get lobbed over the fence and the other side says eh, no. we're a long way from a constructive dialogue happening between the parties on capitol hill. >> jake in a piece yesterday you wrote "house republicans say if they spend the next two years like they spent the past two they'll become irrelevant." who are the most prominent republicans leading this charge toward as you put it irrelevancy? >> toward irrelev
on that "washington post" article that came out recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that we keep on about 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the planning process thus far, but can you supported plan that would scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? you know, we are looking at withdrawal of troops in afghanistan, and according to this article from about 8000 down to 1000 within a very short period of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends upon conditions on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood what the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. and i certainly, my advice as a commander on the ground or commander of central command, i would provide my advice based upon where i think the security forces are, a
Search Results 0 to 43 of about 44 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)